a closer look. I'm pretty unhappy with
section 4 (redistribution) of the Apache License 2.0 myself.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
. There are, in fact, open source
licenses out there that are not OSI approved, and there is open source
software that uses licenses that are not OSI approved. The FAQ should
strive for accuracy.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital
matters.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
hope this makes sense. Please let me know if (a) there is an
existing license that does this and (b) whether this would qualify as
true open source.
I'm afraid I'm a month late here, but . . .
http://copyfree.org/licenses/coil/license.txt
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http
of a judge if the license
steward *means* that. If the license steward *says* it, but doesn't
really mean it (or changes his/her mind), (s)he may try suing anyway.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, there is a difference. This may be getting buried under the
language of disapproval.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin
a little to me like you've both been accusing each other of bad
faith. Maybe it's time to kiss and make up.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 03:09:47PM -0700, Luis Villa wrote:
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
Chad Perrin scripsit:
Is have been approved through the [OSI's] license review process really
a requirement for being an open source license
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 02:48:38PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Chad Perrin scripsit:
Before pushing such a change, perhaps we should consider the meaning of
Apache 2.0 License section 4, subsections 2 and 4. There's more to
permissive than isn't copyleft, and Apache is a somewhat less
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:17:49AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On the other hand, a fully-written pleading for a Rule 11
sanction is beyond the means of someone who cannot afford a
competent attorney.
Since Olson was a Free Software developer, EFF
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:18:12AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
You seem here to be saying Let's not worry about it. You'll get sued,
or you won't. There's no perfect answer, so don't bother trying to come
up with somewhat better answers
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:20:58AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
I think the point was [...]
I believe I was having a discussion with Chris Travers. Didn't I ask
you to kindly go away and chew up someone else's time?
Yes, you *are* the sort of person
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 11:43:41AM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:34 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:
Something tells me it is not reasonable to just always expect that
writing open source code guarantees the EFF's help.
Sure. But folks who have asked me for help got me free, and I've
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 02:29:28PM -0500, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
On 3/2/12 1:38 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
There seem to be three general approaches to failing to address the
important matter of how to deal with the needs of independent open source
software developers:
1
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:41:01PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
On 02/26/2012 09:00 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
I suspect a better approach to understandable, legally well-formed
license production might be to get someone who wants a very simple
license to write it, and only *then* get the lawyers
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:08:17AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin:
Explain to me how wanting to enforce a crapton of additional terms is
realism instead of a more-restrictive license.
Mu. This request has nothing to do with what I said, and I just don't
have that time
it wasn't even there, such
as a few very popular OSI-approved licenses longer than any Microsoft
EULA I have ever seen.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:15:51AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
If that has nothing to do with what you said, what you said must have
nothing to do with the points to which you replied.
This comment does not strike me as either logical
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
[Moved to license-discuss, as this thread has become highly offtopic for
license-review.]
Quoting Chad Perrin (per...@apotheon.com):
It doesn't help much that it seems like everyone working with lawyers
wants to produce horribly
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:28:03AM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
(Cry me a river.)
By the way, your asshole-ish attitude is hilarious when you're addressing
something I didn't even say.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org
be to get someone who wants a very simple
license to write it, and only *then* get the lawyers involved. While
you're at it, be prepared to make the lawyers explain everything they
want to change, and to tell them no a lot.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org
on the letter of the license, rather than the FSF's stated
intent for the license.
Let the licensee beware.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
, in any case. Of course, I am not a lawyer, this
should not be regarded as legal advice, et cetera, yaddda yadda, don't
take my word for it, get a lawyer.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
___
License-discuss mailing
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:40:52PM +0200, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Chad Perrin per...@apotheon.com wrote:
In that, the only way the opinion of the license's author really seems to
factor into things once the license has already been written is as a
contribution
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:51:34PM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 05:34:45PM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
If the FSF's is the more restrictive interpretation, you then
need to consider cases where the FSF has taken up the mantle of defender
of works for which it arguably
in the upstream project's
maintainership could get you in a lot of trouble if you rely entirely on
the legally non-binding word of a project maintainer.
--
Chad Perrin
___
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@opensource.org
http
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:45:28PM -0500, Clark C. Evans wrote:
I'd love your high-level thoughts on a Free Island
license or anything that might be similar in nature.
I'll see what I can offer. I speak for myself, only, in this.
Note that I am not a lawyer, and my comments should not be
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:03:07AM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Chad Perrin wrote:
TL;DR Summary:
My take would be that this satisfies the conditions of the Open
Source Definition, though I may have overlooked something in my first
reading.
I think
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 04:33:13PM -0600, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
I believe these could be understood to conflict with:
- ``The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all
to process the data, you must re-release the
product
of your munging along with your munger ruleset(TM) to the munger$ network?
I ask because this is related to another project with which I am involved.
That seems to me like a Terms of Service issue.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 04:09:24PM +0100, David Woolley wrote:
Chad Perrin wrote:
This may be a touch off-topic for this list, but . . . why would you want
to grant someone the ability to prohibit others from using *facts* by the
simple expedient of (for instance) alphabetizing a list
31 matches
Mail list logo
